House Dems’ ultimatum: Any immigration bill must have a path to citizenship

posted at 4:41 pm on July 9, 2013 by Allahpundit

We … already knew this, didn’t we? The whole point of immigration reform for the left is earning more Latino votes, be they natural-born American citizens or amnestized illegals from Mexico. If you give up the path to citizenship, what exactly have you gained from this process that’s supposed to impress them?

Returning from recess this week after the Senate passed a broad bill that would overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, House Democrats huddled with the four Democratic senators who helped draft the original bill, completing plans to help push immigration legislation through the Republican-controlled House…

In Tuesday morning’s meeting, according to an aide familiar with Mr. Schumer’s remarks, the senator outlined what he described as Speaker John A. Boehner’s five possible options for handling the issue — doing nothing; opting for a piecemeal approach of several separate but related immigration bills; passing a comprehensive bill that does not include a path to citizenship; passing a comprehensive bill that does include a path to citizenship that is different, and likely stricter, than the one offered in the Senate bill; or taking up the legislation that has passed the Senate.

The thinking, Democratic aides said, is that if Democrats hold back their support for any legislation that does not include a citizenship component, House Republicans, faced with a core group of conservative members who oppose almost any immigration bill, will be unable to pass something on their own.

Boehner has a sixth option, actually — pass a more modest comprehensive bill that offers partial legalization in exchange for some border improvements. DREAM amnesty in return for E-Verify, for example. Despite the endless rhetoric from some House conservatives about a path to citizenship being a nonstarter, it’s hard for me to believe there isn’t a majority in the caucus willing to make some sort of concession to legalization given the abject panic among establishment Republicans about alienating Latinos forever. As I’ve said before, the path to citizenship isn’t even the real problem with the Gang of Eight bill. The problem is that initial legalization comes first, before border security, which destroys the Democrats’ incentive to take the border seriously.

But you know, the longer this clusterfark drags on, the more fatalistic I am about a GOP cave at *some* point, even if it’s not this year. For instance, let’s imagine that border hawks like me finally got our way and Schumer agreed that no form of legalization at all will be granted until the border has been measurably improved. The bill passes, Obama signs it, and we “win.” What happens three years from now when Democrats start grumbling that those improvements are taking too long and that it’s racist to make illegals wait for legalization until it’s secure? The whole story of the past six months (or past eight months, dating back to the election) is that GOP leaders are eager to agree to whatever Democrats demand of them in the name of rebuilding their relationship with Latinos. That won’t change as we get closer to 2016; if anything, it’ll get worse, especially as Democrats improve their efforts to register more Latino voters.. So even if border hawks get everything we want and end up with our dream immigration bill, how much do we trust congressional Republicans not to water this thing down fatally once conservatives have stopped paying attention? (Or even in the conference committee, when they are still paying attention?) This is why I can’t understand Schumer driving a hard bargain on the path to citizenship or anything else, unless he thinks a temporary loss would demoralize his base. He’ll win eventually. It’s a fait accompli. Concede what you need to concede to pass the bill and then take suckers like me for a ride afterward.

“It’s clear from everything that I’ve seen and read over the last couple of weeks that the American people expect that we’ll have strong border security in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system,” Boehner said outside the Capitol Monday afternoon.

His spokesman Michael Steel explains that the statement is consistent with Boehner’s “long-standing emphasis on border security.”

There’s a potential compromise there if Schumer could afford to ignore his base and play a long game here: Democrats agree that border security should come first, even before initial probationary legalization, in return for including the Gang of Eight’s path to citizenship in the bill. You might get a sizable number of Republicans voting for that. You’d probably get some Democrats too. That’s the whole trick for Boehner now — can he find some coalition that can get to 218 in the House that would include a majority of Republicans (per the Hastert Rule) plus some significant segment (80-100) of Democrats? Maybe this result, from John McLaughlin’s new poll of Latinos, will sweeten the pot:

Latinos want so-called “extreme” border security too. And here’s one for jittery Republicans who continue to think immigration is the key to winning Latino votes:

Amnesty supporters would argue that this misses the point, that Latinos are unwilling to consider GOP policy proposals on the bread-and-butter issues until they show some goodwill on immigration. As Nate Cohn put it at TNR today, immigration may be more important to skeptical Latino voters as a sign of Republicans’ willingness to “rebrand” than on the merits. There’s some truth to that, even though it smells of the idea that Republicans should agree to whatever Democrat concern-trolls claim is necessary for a successful “rebranding” to occur. But like I said up top, if you’re interested in building goodwill, you could always trade a limited amnesty for limited border improvements — especially if the GOP intends to pass its own form of comprehensive reform after retaking the Senate, as Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry suggest. We’ll lose on immigration in the end because Republicans will eventually cave in terror, but we don’t need to lose completely right away.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

As I’ve said before, the path to citizenship isn’t even the real problem with the Gang of Eight bill.

Thats horribly wrong. A country as big as ours will always have problems with illegal immigration – though they dont have to be as big as they are right now. Thus there will always be a clientel for amnesty. Its amnesty itself that must be fought and Republicans should stop being political wh0res, who are as Churchill put it merely negotiating the price.

And with that poison pill, the bill is history. and the Dems agenda is all set for the 2014 campaign: deflect attention away from the horrors of OboobaCare, and onto the racist Republicans’ hatred of Mexicans.

We’ll lose on immigration in the end because Republicans will eventually cave in terror, but we don’t need to lose completely right away.

Why must they cave? If they’ll cave on this, what will they not cave on? Abortion? Obamacare? Cap-and-trade? Taxes? (I’m kidding about the last one since they already did cave.)

For once, can the GOP stand their ground? They refused to go along with Porkulus and Obamacare and were rewarded with an historic victory in 2010 and the retaking of the House. Do they not realize that maybe that wasn’t a fluke? Maybe voters out there will show up at the polls and pull the lever for more Republicans if they’re seen as a true alternative to the Democrats.

Boehner has a sixth option, actually — pass a more modest comprehensive bill that offers partial legalization in exchange for some border improvements.

No, no, no, NO!

NO.

DREAM amnesty in return for E-Verify, for example.

No.

Enforce the laws. Illegals all have nations that they are actually citizens of – where they belong. And once one has been found illegally present on our soil he is never allowed to return here. Period. No visas, no nothing. Ciao, dirtball. Talk of any sort of “legalization” (LOL) or citizenship is pure, unadulterated treason – giving aid and comfort to an invading enemy.

But … it doesn’t really matter any more. This nation is toast. There is no law left, only an empathetic mockery of the concept of law – brought by a third-world, 84 IQ, America-hating retard and aided and confirmed by the cowardly, sniveling GOP on the Hill.

But you know, the longer this clusterfark drags on, the more fatalistic I am about a GOP cave at *some* point, even if it’s not this year.

That’s always been the Dems’ strategy. As long as the debate rages they win because, remember, the debate is about THEIR core interest. We shouldn’t even be HAVING this debate. Just enforce existing immigration laws. The GOP ALWAYS argues on the Dems’ terms. ALWAYS. They’re always playing defense so, by default, they’ve already lost. So ANYTHING the Dems gain is merely another step that they will build on until they get everything they want.

Why aren’t Republicans whittling down the groups who are eligible for citizenship?

First, we know who has overstayed their visa. We had a deal with them, and they fully understood the rules. Deport them.

Second, have a criminal record? Deport them.

Third, member of a gang? Deport them.

Fourth, arrived here after 2009? Deport them. No roots planted in three plus years.

Fifth, stole an identity to come or remain here or engaged in an EITC fraud? Deport them.

For those remaining, if you came here as an adult, you can remain, but you NEVER get citizenship. For those baby-seals who came here as minors “through no fault of their own,” provide a path to citizenship that takes as long as it currently takes for someone at the end of the line.

Beef up the border AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD the internal enforcement, and get rid of all the Senate bill’s liberal wishlist.

Here is the bill republicans should pass. 6 years for the government to make the border as secure as humanely possible with hard with hard checkpoints. You will not stop 100% of the illegal immigration but it will be damn better than just 25% of the senate bill. All during those years the path starts and continues. Every year, a hard checkpoint and a milestone in the path way. If on the day after 6 years the border is not as secure as possible, the pathway is rolled back up.
GOP gets border security and can brag they gave a shorter pathway to illegals then the 13 years democrats proposed.

Hey AP, just curious – where’s the discussion about the option to pass nothing new, and simply enforce existing (and wholly adequate) law? You call yourself a border hawk, and yet the presumption is that some bill just *has* to be passed here that includes legalization of illegals somehow… why?

Why aren’t Republicans whittling down the groups who are eligible for citizenship?

First, we know who has overstayed their visa. We had a deal with them, and they fully understood the rules. Deport them.

Second, have a criminal record? Deport them.

Third, member of a gang? Deport them.

Fourth, arrived here after 2009? Deport them. No roots planted in three plus years.

Fifth, stole an identity to come or remain here or engaged in an EITC fraud? Deport them.

For those remaining, if you came here as an adult, you can remain, but you NEVER get citizenship. For those baby-seals who came here as minors “through no fault of their own,” provide a path to citizenship that takes as long as it currently takes for someone at the end of the line.

Beef up the border AND FOR CRYING OUT LOUD the internal enforcement, and get rid of all the Senate bill’s liberal wishlist.

Hey AP, just curious – where’s the discussion about the option to pass nothing new, and simply enforce existing (and wholly adequate) law? You call yourself a border hawk, and yet the presumption is that some bill just *has* to be passed here that includes legalization of illegals somehow… why?

Midas on July 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM

He’s predicting what the Republicans are going to do, not what he wants (and believe me, the Republicans are absolutely salivating at the thought of passing that Senate bill). AP has been beating the drum against amnesty fairly aggressively.

Immigration reform means just that reform the present system, not play around the edges while caving in on principled points. The republicans need to present an agenda of true reform for true immigrants, not pander to illegal migrants with no desire nor intention of assimilating but who wish to, in their words, take back the southwest for Mexico.

1. Eliminate the preferential treatment for relatives of immigrants.
2. Re-define “natural born” to require that the child’s parents be citizens, or legal permanent residents to eliminate anchor babies.
3. Enforce current immigration laws, including deporting illegals, regardless of how many of them there are.
4. Close the border to invaders.
5. Set up a migrant worker program, taxed without a path to citizenship.
6. Be nice, and offer to register illegal workers as legal migrant worker, upon the payment of a fine.

A couple a hundred miles of two layered fencing would sure make me feel a whole lot more agreeable on the other stuff.

NeoKong on July 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM

1200 miles of triple barbed 30ft fencing with land mines in between
3 layers of fencing would make me feel better.
And the US could make money by putting cams in and having
a pay per view to watch the illegals blow up……

Here’s my solution, we move the families of all Congressmen down to border states for duration of their time in office so they can get a feel for what it’s like down there. My guess is that you’ll have a secure border six months later.

OT: Illinois just overrode the governor’s veto and approved conceal-carry, the last state to do so.

Eat popo, you anti-gun homophobes, now the few remaining law abiding citizens of Chicago can finally fight back.

Bishop on July 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I heard the congressman who has brought forth the concealed carry law for 11 years (!) say when interviewed that Miami used to be the murder capital of the US. When Florida passed their conceal carry law, the murder rate in Miami alone went down over 30%.

He also said that if you have a concealed carry license from another state you can legally carry your weapon into Illinois, however, only in
your vehicle. To carry it concealed on your person one would need to have a concealed carry permit from the state of Illinois.

So even if border hawks get everything we want and end up with our dream immigration bill, how much do we trust congressional Republicans not to water this thing down fatally once conservatives have stopped paying attention?

How much do we trust the present administration to enforce any E-verify or increased border security laws?

This is nothing more than a Sh*t sandwich being served up by both sides. The only question now is, who is going to eat it? My guess is the Republicans can’t win on this one. Sorta like the war on women kind of thing.

A majority of Hispanic voters think legal status to illegal immigrants should be granted only after a goal of stopping 90 percent of future illegal immigration has been acheived, according to a new survey by GOP pollster John McLaughlin.

Let’s be clear. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want a Path to Dual-Citizenship.

Dual-Citizenship will allow these ILLEGAL aliens to collect benefits and to cancel out the votes of 100% Americans by voting in U.S. elections, while they maintain their citizenship and true loyalty to their birth country.

American Citizens are being foolish chumps to even continue discussing the possibility of “legalizing” millions of people who have DISRESPECTED OUR LAWS by being in our country ILLEGALLY.

Same tired old tactics from the left. They love it if we try and introduce anything but what they want (and decided for the Hispanics, wrongly, that it’s what they want too) because then they get to paint the GOP as being heartless obstructionists. The same thing happened with the health care bill, remember the ads pushing granny in a wheelchair off the cliff because the GOP came out against the bill? Same with the sequester, oh how bad things were going to become because the nasty old GOP let the sequester go into effect. Not. This is just more of the same. It’s all they know how to do! Yawn.

No inroads will ever be made into the Hispanic community* unless and until there are Spanish-language media giving voice to los conservadores. When Univision and Telemundo have a lock on that market and no conservative competition to el Nuevo Herald and el Diario, there is no mechanism to reach this population, and some idiotic display of phony magnanimity is nothing but a punto muerto.

El Rushbo sprinkling in some “Spanish lingo” falls well short.

*This concept is a crock anyhow. Cubans and Puerto Ricans do not like Mexicans, and immigration does not mean anything for Puerto Ricans, who are born citizens.

Whatever is passed will be solely an amnesty law. Because we already know that The One will refuse to enforce any measures to secure the border or repatriate illegals already here.

As such, there is only one reason for any Republican to vote for any version of this bill. That being, a desire to be “part of the in crowd” and reap the benefits thereof, even if he does so as a member of a permanent minority.

Any Republican who votes for any version of this should be thrown out of the party, and urged to re-register as a Democrat. Since that’s what he obviously really wants to be.

It’s called “choosing the winning side”. Much as Stanley did when Richard III took the throne.

You mean like in 1986 when they got amnesty from a republican president and still vote democrat … Latinos will forever be alienated by the republican party simply based on party lines. No other amnesty is going to change that.

Any immigration bill must have a path back to the border behind a long line so that once again Americans will be choosing who immigrates here and how many, so that America’s leaders and future isn’t determined by a bunch of 3rd world migrants looking for free food, housing and health care, otherwise known as future Democrat dependents.

good lord no wonder I stopped reading here. This is from a border hawk? Republicans have to cave? This is real simple. Republicans are one wrong move away from political irrelevance. And it won’t be because they alienated hispanics.